1993 (3) TMI 65 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the procedure adopted by the Appellate Tribunal in delivering orders in appeals.
2. Whether the Accountant Member exceeded jurisdiction by writing a separate order after subscribing to a common order.
3. Whether the directions given by the Accountant Member in the separate order are valid in law.
4. Invocation of Article 227 of the Constitution of India to annul the separate order by the Accountant Member.
5. Refraining from invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 and directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer questions of law to the court.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Kerala, delivered by Justice K. S. Paripoornan, pertains to two original petitions involving identical issues under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The controversy revolves around the procedure followed by the Appellate Tribunal in issuing orders in appeals. Specifically, the question arises as to whether the Accountant Member, after signing a common order, was justified in writing a separate concurring order. The Revenue contends that such action exceeded jurisdiction, especially if the separate order has a different impact or result. The court, in considering a petition under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, found that questions of law do arise from the Appellate Tribunal's order and directed the Tribunal to refer these questions for decision.

The court referenced a previous Bench decision and expressed doubts about invoking Article 227 of the Constitution to annul the separate order by the Accountant Member. Despite doubts, the court refrained from definitively deciding on the matter. It highlighted the importance of statutory remedies and questioned the necessity of resorting to extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 when statutory remedies are available. The court opted not to follow the course taken in the previous decision and directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the questions of law to the court within three months.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses the procedural intricacies of the Appellate Tribunal's orders, the jurisdictional boundaries of the Accountant Member in issuing separate orders, and the implications of invoking constitutional provisions like Article 227. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of statutory remedies and the cautious approach towards utilizing extraordinary jurisdiction, ultimately directing the Tribunal to refer the legal questions for the court's decision.